 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
This is what I've been wondering:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/13/rundle-so-many-questions-from-sydney-siege-but-no-adequate-answers/
| Quote: | We’re learning some other disturbing facts about the siege and its end too — that the police were unwilling to let Muslim community leaders speak to Monis, that they had no clear strategy over whether to give Monis an Islamic State flag or not (for which he had said he would release a hostage) and that police had no ongoing contact with Monis for hours at a time during the siege.
It is the last of these that is most disturbing. The core imperative of any hostage negotiation is to maintain a connection with the hostage-taker, and establish a relationship with him (or, much less commonly, her). This is especially so when hostages have been taken not by professional criminals, but by those who believe that they have been “driven” to such an act, and have no other choice.
[…]
Though he was clearly not insane in a legal sense, Monis was obviously disturbed and narcissistic, the type for whom a substantial negotiation exists. Put simply, if a hostage negotiator can establish a personal relationship with such a figure, convince them that they genuinely understand their troubles, and recognise their legitimacy, the hostage-taker has a good chance of being calmed down, releasing hostages for less than they had asked for, or for nothing at all, and often having their resolve completely broken. Having steeled themselves to violent action by developing a sense of isolation and superhuman bearing, an apparently real connection with a human being can deflate that resolve rapidly.
The revelation that there was no ongoing contact raises a crucial question. Was Monis treated as a disturbed hostage-taker first and foremost — disgruntled employee, angry divorced father — or did his self-proclaimed status as an IS representative alter the way in which the situation was handled? Was a crude rule of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” — which, in such circumstances, we do — allowed to dictate operational procedure? |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | If you can hand out father of the year and Australian of the year awards to sportsman willy nilliy, then give the cops bravery awards. Every situation is different, but it sounds as if certainly a few of the hostages at least did some mighty brave stuff |
Just because one award has become political doesn't mean we should allow another award to go down the same path. The police were doing their job and nothing I've heard to date would indicate any of them went above and beyond the call of their duty. I agree regarding the hostages and believe all of them were courageous in their own way, I'm simply saying I don't believed those that escaped warrant Bravery Awards. |
Why because they escaped? Does that make them cowards? Or don't give any of the hostages an award unless they jumped in fron of the gun?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | This is what I've been wondering:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/01/13/rundle-so-many-questions-from-sydney-siege-but-no-adequate-answers/
| Quote: | We’re learning some other disturbing facts about the siege and its end too — that the police were unwilling to let Muslim community leaders speak to Monis, that they had no clear strategy over whether to give Monis an Islamic State flag or not (for which he had said he would release a hostage) and that police had no ongoing contact with Monis for hours at a time during the siege.
It is the last of these that is most disturbing. The core imperative of any hostage negotiation is to maintain a connection with the hostage-taker, and establish a relationship with him (or, much less commonly, her). This is especially so when hostages have been taken not by professional criminals, but by those who believe that they have been “driven” to such an act, and have no other choice.
[…]
Though he was clearly not insane in a legal sense, Monis was obviously disturbed and narcissistic, the type for whom a substantial negotiation exists. Put simply, if a hostage negotiator can establish a personal relationship with such a figure, convince them that they genuinely understand their troubles, and recognise their legitimacy, the hostage-taker has a good chance of being calmed down, releasing hostages for less than they had asked for, or for nothing at all, and often having their resolve completely broken. Having steeled themselves to violent action by developing a sense of isolation and superhuman bearing, an apparently real connection with a human being can deflate that resolve rapidly.
The revelation that there was no ongoing contact raises a crucial question. Was Monis treated as a disturbed hostage-taker first and foremost — disgruntled employee, angry divorced father — or did his self-proclaimed status as an IS representative alter the way in which the situation was handled? Was a crude rule of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” — which, in such circumstances, we do — allowed to dictate operational procedure? |
|
You really know how to push my buttons!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A female hostage wants a six figure sum for an interview. 
We have a push for Terrorism compensation payouts that people can receive overseas to be the same here. My question is this, was this incident an act of Terrorism? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, there's a can of worms. Frankly, I find the whole concept of terrorism compensation very dubious, particularly when nothing of the sort exists for other victims of violent crime—it seems like a case of very opportunistic politicking.
| think positive wrote: | | You really know how to push my buttons! |
I'm sorry that you can't abide criticism of police actions, but I will never give police, or the army, or the government—or any other group or individual that wields authority in our society—a free pass just because they held a press conference and said that everything went okay. Indeed, I believe that it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to always ask questions and never be afraid to criticise if we think it's warranted.
Nobody and nothing can ever be considered above criticism.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There is victims of crime compensation.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick, then. There was talk of making terrorism a special category, though, wasn't there?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What happened? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Well, there's a can of worms. Frankly, I find the whole concept of terrorism compensation very dubious, particularly when nothing of the sort exists for other victims of violent crime—it seems like a case of very opportunistic politicking.
| think positive wrote: | | You really know how to push my buttons! |
I'm sorry that you can't abide criticism of police actions, but I will never give police, or the army, or the government—or any other group or individual that wields authority in our society—a free pass just because they held a press conference and said that everything went okay. Indeed, I believe that it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to always ask questions and never be afraid to criticise if we think it's warranted.
Nobody and nothing can ever be considered above criticism. |
True yet when did you question the terrorist?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What's there to question? It goes without saying that I think taking innocent people hostage is wrong. Has anything I've written suggested otherwise?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | There is victims of crime compensation. |
There is but they will get $1500 under that. Under the Terrorism rule you can get up to $70K. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | What's there to question? It goes without saying that I think taking innocent people hostage is wrong. Has anything I've written suggested otherwise? |
so what should the cops have done? Waited? Hoped he would see the light? Get his mother or his kids in? Shot him in the head?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | What's there to question? It goes without saying that I think taking innocent people hostage is wrong. Has anything I've written suggested otherwise? |
so what should the cops have done? Waited? Hoped he would see the light? Get his mother or his kids in? Shot him in the head? |
Without storming the building, good luck with that.
IIRC that building used to be a bank. That aint standard coffee shop glass in those windows.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | What's there to question? It goes without saying that I think taking innocent people hostage is wrong. Has anything I've written suggested otherwise? |
so what should the cops have done? Waited? Hoped he would see the light? Get his mother or his kids in? Shot him in the head? |
Should have got his wife..........
Oh hang on he had already had his current partner murder her!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | What's there to question? It goes without saying that I think taking innocent people hostage is wrong. Has anything I've written suggested otherwise? |
so what should the cops have done? Waited? Hoped he would see the light? Get his mother or his kids in? Shot him in the head? |
The suggestion in the article above is that more avenues of negotiation could have been explored. My concern is that it was not treated as an ordinary hostage situation; the immense police presence lends weight to that hypothesis. That may well have exacerbated the situation. There's a lot that we still don't know, but these are important questions to ponder; they go far beyond whether police officer A or B screwed up.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
